"NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS", HERE'S THE SIMPLE TRUTH ABOUT ABORTION

[Immanuel Can]

To begin with we should keep biased appeals out of it, such as Henry's emotional language "piece of meat". There is no way a living foetus is a piece of meat.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I also have to wonder how you feel confident to say you know that so precisely: "...there is no way..."

You must know something about what "it" is. So exactly what do you know? What is it?

[Belinda]

1. A piece of meat is something we eat usually bought wrapped in plastic at the supermarket.

2. A piece of meat is a low status thing unlike a foetus which might if it's nutured, become a new indivdual.

3. A human foetus is often more precious to its nearest and dearest its mother, than is dead flesh.

4. Pieces of meat are environmentally unsustainable but human foetuses might when they come to be born swell the numbers of much needed young of the species.

[RCSaunders]

Sumthin' croppin' up in your writings & posts is the notion that folks would be 'happier' if they adhered to the principles you outline.

Seems to me: principles aren't about what makes me 'feel better' but about 'doin' right'.

You misunderstand me because I do not share your shallow view of human happiness. If you did you would understand that the opposite of human happiness is human unhappiness, failure, and misery. Are those your ideals? Is that what, "doin' right," does for you?

Happiness is not a feeling, it is the state of one's being when they are living right and they know it.

Happiness is the state of enjoying every aspect of one's life.

Success is living one's life in a way that makes happiness possible; it is living in complete control of one's life and the course of it.

Fulfilled life is a life lived to its greatest possible potential, achieving all that is possible for one to achieve, because anything less is not true success or happiness.

Happiness does not mean free of pain, suffering, or difficulty because these are aspects of all life. Happiness results from living in such a way that pain and suffering are never taken seriously or as primary, but only as the price for achieving the the best possible, compared to which pain and suffering are incidentals hardly worth noticing.

Success does not mean never having set-backs or disappointments, which are always short term, while success is long term. Success is achieved by not letting minor defeats discourage one in the pursuit of the best in life and in oneself.

A fulfilled human life is achieving all one can possibly achieve and being all one can possibly be, in body and mind, never ceasing to grow, learn, and develop. One's own success has nothing to do with anyone else's success or failure. The standard of human success and fulfillment is one's own life and abilities and the extent to which one thoroughly does all they are able. An individual of mediocre ability who achieves all he can is more successful than the individual of exceptional ability who squanders his abilities and achieves only what is easy without exertion, no matter how much he achieves. A fulfilled life is the only kind of life that can truly satisfy human nature, and anything less is a life characterized by disappointment, guilt, despair, and regret.

[Immanuel Can]

1. A piece of meat is something we eat usually bought wrapped in plastic at the supermarket.

True, but trivial if a foetus is merely a "cluster of cells," as the pro-abortion lobby would like us all to think. I take it you don't believe them.

2. A piece of meat is a low status thing unlike a foetus which might if it's nutured, become a new indivdual.

You're onto two important things here: the issue of "status" and of the continuum of life, of which Daschund spoke. He's said a lot about the latter, so I'll ask about the former: what aspect of the foetus imparts to it a "status" above "piece of meat"?

That's an interesting question.

3. A human foetus is often more precious to its nearest and dearest its mother, than is dead flesh.

But this won't clarify its real status, since some children are not "precious" in the eyes of their mothers. But that won't make them less as "persons," will it? If somebody doesn't love you, does that mean you're just a "piece of meat"? Surely not.

So we're not opting for the idea that children are only "persons" if somebody wants them. Their ontological status will not depend on their social approval rating.

4. Pieces of meat are environmentally unsustainable but human foetuses might when they come to be born swell the numbers of much needed young of the species.

Much could be said here of "environmentally sustainable," but I think it's just a bit wide of the mark. For those people who believe in overpopulation, that point is unlikely to be serious, too.

Interesting, but not convincing. Perhaps there are further reasons we should feel uneasy about comparing fetuses to "pieces of meat" (or "clusters of cells"). Daschund has given us some good ones, and I think there are more.

[RCSaunders]

I'm not cutting off communication, just being realistic about what to expect. If you are interested in what ethical principles are see the article, "Principles".

Your view won't permit society, because societies are only founded by agreement, and your theory denies that agreement has any moral significance.

You must have missed the eighth principle:

The only moral relationship between individuals is reason. Individuals may morally deal with one another by means of reason to their mutual benefit, socially, financially, in business or any other cooperative efforts, or any other way they mutually choose. All other relationships are unethical.

I think you are making a basic mistake in the nature of philosophy. Ethics is the branch of society that deals with the principles by which individuals must live. Those who live by those principle have no problem dealing with other individuals and in fact are the only ones capable of the kind of relationships with others that are enjoyable and totally benevolent.

The branch of philosophy that deals with the relationships between individuals (societies) is politics. Politics is sometimes described in philosophy as the application of ethical principle in a social setting.

I also think you misunderstand the nature and purpose of ethical principles. This explanation to Peter Holmes should be interesting.

[Immanuel Can]

You must have missed the eighth principle:

The only moral relationship between individuals is reason. Individuals may morally deal with one another by means of reason to their mutual benefit, socially, financially, in business or any other cooperative efforts, or any other way they mutually choose. All other relationships are unethical.

No, I didn't miss it. I didn't build anything on it because it simply doesn't make sense. "Reason" is a procedure; it has no substantive content of its own. "Reason" has no ethical views. You can't appeal to "reason" to tell you what is right or wrong, because a Nazi can "reason" as well as a Quaker or a Leftist Liberal can: but since each is reasoning from different ontological premises, you get no ethical agreement among their views. Reason alone can't fix that.

I also note that at the end, you throw in, "All other relationships are unethical." That's a clear case of unwarranted value-laden terms...almost of nothing more than name-calling, really. For as you have already established, in your individualistic view, there is no objectivity to ethics except the individual's opinion: so there can be no "unethical" relationships...only relationships RC personally doesn't like. That's not strong enough to warrant the word "ethical" -- and certainly not when you arbitrarily apply it to anyone else's contrary view.

Ethics is the branch of society that deals with the principles by which individuals must live.

Most ethicists do not accept the idea that "ethics is [merely] a branch of society." Instead, they divide it into three primary branches: metaethics, normative ethics and applied ethics. Society enters some consideration at the third level, and partly at the second; but in most cases, does not even figure decisively anywhere in the first. Most understand ethics as something that governs society -- not the other way around, as you suggest.

Another problem: there's no force to this "must" you use here. Who says they "must"? What happens if they don't want to? Your own theory says we can't tell them anything, then.

I also think you misunderstand the nature and purpose of ethical principles.

I would say the same of you. I think there are some very obvious mistakes in your theory. For a start, the idea that "ethics" are individualistic is self-evidently wrong, I would suggest.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

1.

A piece of meat is something we eat usually bought wrapped in plastic at the supermarket.

True, but trivial if a foetus is merely a "cluster of cells," as the pro-abortion lobby would like us all to think. I take it you don't believe them.

That cluster of cells stage can eventually evolve into a viable individual. As an approximate guide the more mature the foetus is the more claim to preserve it. Relativity, Immanuel.


.

A piece of meat is a low status thing unlike a foetus which might if it's nutured, become a new indivdual.

You're onto two important things here: the issue of "status" and of the continuum of life, of which Daschund spoke. He's said a lot about the latter, so I'll ask about the former: what aspect of the foetus imparts to it a "status" above "piece of meat"?

I've said what in what you quoted from me, above.

3. A human foetus is often more precious to its nearest and dearest its mother, than is dead flesh.

But this won't clarify its real status, since some children are not "precious" in the eyes of their mothers. But that won't make them less as "persons," will it? If somebody doesn't love you, does that mean you're just a "piece of meat"? Surely not.

Sure there are exceptions to the rule. Of course you are right, but I did not intend this item to be sufficient by iteself.

So we're not opting for the idea that children are only "persons" if somebody wants them. Their ontological status will not depend on their social approval rating.

That is right. Are you being sarcastic?

4. Pieces of meat are environmentally unsustainable but human foetuses might when they come to be born swell the numbers of much needed young of the species.

Much could be said here of "environmentally sustainable," but I think it's just a bit wide of the mark. For those people who believe in overpopulation, that point is unlikely to be serious, too.

It's true that size and age balance of any demographic is complex and needs careful study.

Interesting, but not convincing.

I don't flatter myself that I am sure of any wholly right answer.

[Immanuel Can]

I've said what in what you quoted from me, above.

Actually, no you didn't. You said it had a higher status, but you didn't say why.

So why?

Are you being sarcastic?

No: I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. The alternative seemed to me obviously untenable.

I don't flatter myself that I am sure of any wholly right answer.

Oh, that's not necessary, of course. But when one feels a certain value judgment it appropriate (such as "a foetus is of higher status than meat," say), then the obvious question that out to follow is, "How do I know that?"

All I'm saying is, let's pursue your idea further, and see where it goes.

You say you perceive a special status to adhere to a foetus. I don't think you're wrong. But now, we need to ask why you're not wrong.

[henry quirk]

[RCSaunders]

I also think you misunderstand the nature and purpose of ethical principles.

I would say the same of you.

It's fine that you disagree with my view of ethics, but unless you can tell me what you think the nature and principle of ethical principles are, as I did in my explanation to Peter Holmes, I shall have to assume your disagreement is based on your not understanding my view. I already have a good idea of what you think are some specific ethical principles, what I want to know is specifically what you believe ethical principles are, what their purpose is, and why anyone should care about them.

[henry quirk]

I use the rather stark contrast -- 'person or meat?' -- to hammer home the conundrum.

We all muddy the water on this with prattle about rights and ethics and whatnot. That is: we consistently put the cart in front of the goddamned horse but still expect the nag to pull a load.

I simply wanna strip away all the legal/moral/ethical garbage and get to the root of it.

Again: What does a pregnant woman carry? Person or meat?

Don't drone on about definitions of this or that or musings on the nature of this or that.

You, the person readin' this: what does a pregnant woman carry? Person or meat?

Stop 'thinkin' and just 'answer'.

We can dick around with the 'philosophy' of it all later: just answer the question the friggin' question, for Crom's sake.

[henry quirk]

"You misunderstand me because I do not share your shallow view of human happiness."

I understand you: I just think you're wrong.

#

"If you did you would understand that the opposite of human happiness is human unhappiness, failure, and misery. Are those your ideals? Is that what, "doin' right," does for you?"

Speaking only for me (cuz mebbe all you have is a short scale, on one end: 'happy'; on the other: 'unhappy'): In the course of any given day I experience a 'cloud' or 'cluster' of emotions, a spicy gumbo of feelings; nuthin' so prosaic as 'happy' or 'unhappy'. Mebbe my emotional range is wider and deeper and more complex than your own?

As for my 'ideals': I've been pretty plain about it. I'm a free will, I belong to me. Woe unto those who look to hobble me. My 'ideal', then is my Crom-given autonomy. My means to continually secure it is 'me'. The Devil, in my book, are those who'd piss on me, tie a rope to my ankle and name me 'spot'. And: if autonomy is my birthright, then it's yours as well (and -- probably -- the *fetus-person's too). 'Doin' right' mostly is leavin' folks to their lives, their liberty, their property, and --- sometimes -- steppin' up to make some other schmuck leave folks be in their lives, liberty, and property (*hence my worrying at all of you with 'person or meat?')

Your 'ideal', from what I've read at your site, is some two-dimensional, somewhat cowardly, 'individualism' utterly **disconnected from the world as is (pretty sure I can get Peacegirl's phone number for you...you two have a lot in common).

#

"Happiness is not a feeling, it is the state of one's being when they are living right and they know it."

Nope. Happiness 'is' a feeling, usually momentary, definitely overrated, generally associated with children and the simple.









*that there, folks, is my masterful way of keepin' my lambaste of RC relevant to the topic

**as I recall, in one of your essays you wrote it was better to pay the bribe than defy the one demanding it...lunacy, in my book...you never cater to cancer: you KILL it

[Immanuel Can]

I also think you misunderstand the nature and purpose of ethical principles.

I would say the same of you.

It's fine that you disagree with my view of ethics, but unless you can tell me what you think the nature and principle of ethical principles are,...

I've started to. But we disagree on such basics that it's pretty hard to get started. One of the first principles of ethics is that it governs relations between people, not the mere private tastes of individuals.

Look at it this way: let's imagine that you are on a desert island, all by yourself. The island is not owned by anyone, there is no God, and you have zero chances ever to get off it.

What ethical dilemma would you have?

Let's call the island "the world." Its isolation is a reflection of the belief that nobody but you counts when it comes to deciding what is right and what is wrong. (In a real sense, that is just how you are seeing the world -- your private opinion is all that matters, all that counts: so not physically, but ethically, you're on a island: it's not that nobody else is there, but nobody else who counts in the moral calculus is there.) What can it possibly mean, for you, then to say, "X is immoral."

No, it's not. It's not immoral. Nobody else counts. If you want to do it, you do it. If you don't, you don't. And that's the end of the story...so what's all this nonsense about morality, then? You neither need it, nor think it refers to any objective reality. Why would you delude yourself with it?

Now do you see the problem?

I shall have to assume your disagreement is based on your not understanding my view.

Do you think your little treatise on that was unclear? I understood it: I just find it highly problematic and implausible, with seriously self-contradictory aspects, such as moral atomism that was then combined with morally-condemning or laudatory terms. But it's simply irrational and self-contradictory to say, "You can't tell me what to do, and anyone who does is unethical," because that word, "unethical" implies that people who disagree with you are morally wrong.

[Immanuel Can]

Nope. Happiness 'is' a feeling, usually momentary, definitely overrated, generally associated with children and the simple.

Vastly entertaining.

I may have to write that one down.

Point agreed. In Aristotle's sense, a person who dies nobly for something he believes in is "happy," even if he dies screaming in pain. A person who lives a long, untroubled, healthy and entertained but empty life is just not "happy." The real "happy" is about significance, not ease or fun. At least, that's how he thought it was.

And when the founders of the US enshrined the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," some people think they meant "life, liberty and jollies." But they didn't. They were educated men, and they were borrowing from Aristotle's conception...we all have a right to pursue that which will make our lives significant, meaningful and ultimately worthwhile, from the long perspective. We are not promised to be "happy" in the frivolous sense, nor is it our right to make ourselves that way.

So they agreed with you too.

[Arising_uk]

A_uk

My view has shifted with age & consideration & experience. I'm not inclined to 'stand by' any more.

That okay with you?

Sure, welcome to the human race.